Introduction

Is Rapid Speciation Supported?

Young earth creationists claim that Noah carried only a
few thousand "kinds" of animals aboard the ark and that these
kinds speciated rapidly after the flood to form all the millions
of species found on earth now and in the fossil record. This page
examines this model from a scientific and scriptural perspective,
determining that it is scientifically implausible and scripturally
speculative, at best.

Rich Deem

Creationists disagree on the extent of Noah's Flood. The main reason
young-earth creationists insist the Flood was a global event is their model
demands it. The Flood is the mechanism they use to explain the earth's
geological features. Rather than forming over millions or billions of years as
most scientists believe, young-earth creationists maintain the earth's
features are the result of global floodwaters and processes that accompanied
the Flood, like erosion, volcanism and tectonics.1 They also attribute the
majority of the fossil record, virtually everything below the Tertiary strata,
to the Flood.2

One problem for the global-Flood view is explaining how the earth was
repopulated with land animals after the Flood. Young-earth creationists who
recognize the problem of fitting all the land animals on the ark now conclude
Noah only took pairs of the Genesis "kinds." These, they say, were
the ancestral seeds God provided to repopulate the world. As the
"kinds" left the ark, they gave rise to the many different species
on Earth today. For example, horses, zebras and donkeys descended from an
equine "kind," dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals from a canine
"kind," and cattle, bison and water buffalos from a cattle
"kind."3

If true, the amount of post-Flood speciation must have been staggering.
Young-earth creationists estimate Noah took 8,000 to 20,000 species on the
ark. They also say a significant number of these species went extinct shortly
after the Flood.4,5 Based on their dating method, approximately 7 million
species have existed since the Flood-about 2 million have gone extinct and 5
million are alive today. Therefore, nearly 7 million species must have arisen
from far less than 20,000 species in a time frame of a few hundred years.6

How could new species have appeared so fast? Young-earth creationists say
the "kinds" on the ark had a built-in capacity for change.7 Within
each "kind" was created a rich genetic coding that permitted them to
shift their major characteristics to adapt to a wide range of post-Flood
environments.8 They say this genetic system would have generated new species
rather quickly because the changes occurred through recombination of existing
Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes in the rich All the DNA contained in an organism or a cell, which includes both the chromosomes within the nucleus and the DNA in mitochondria.genomes of the "kinds," not mutations as evolution
requires.9

According to the young-earth model, this rapid speciation was triggered by
environmental pressure working on small, isolated populations. After the
Flood, the earth experienced several hundred years of residual catastrophism.10 As the animals left the ark, small groups became
geographically isolated. Each group, having a small The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene pool, suffered
genetic loss as they reproduced-each losing a different portion of their
original genetic information. Thus, over time, each group started looking,
acting and living differently than original "kind."11

Young-earth creationists insist the Biblical account of history not only
accommodates such rapid speciation but requires it.12 However, many
creationists consider the fixity of species to be a central pillar of biblical
creationism. Given the implications of the young-earth model, it is important
to take a critical look at some of the assumptions.

Post-Flood Conditions

The young-earth model is predicated on the belief the Flood was a worldwide
catastrophe that left the earth ecologically unstable with earthquakes,
volcanoes, temperature fluctuations and harmful radiation.13 However, the
global-Flood model contradicts a vast body of geological and geophysical data.14 Scientists find no evidence of recent tectonics, volcanism or erosion
on a scale nearly as great as the global Flood model requires.15 There are
also too many organisms in the fossil record to assert they came from a single
generation of living creatures that were killed by the Flood-the earth simply
could not support that many organisms.16,17

In fact, if the Flood was as catastrophic as young-earth creationists
maintain, it is doubtful anything would have survived. The young-earth model
would require vertical land erosion of more than 700 feet per day and tectonic
uplift of more than 200 vertical feet per day. Anything more than just one
foot of erosion or tectonic uplift is sufficient to destroy most modern
cities. Though the ark was seaworthy for a local flood, the G-forces produced
by such cataclysmic movements would have destroyed it and its occupants.18

Some species also argue against the global-Flood model. The opossum, for
example, shows little change over millions of years. The Cretaceous opossum of
70 million years ago-which most young-earth creationists would classify as
pre-Flood because the fossils are found in strata they classify as Flood
deposits19-is very much like the opossum of today. Such continuous series of
similar fossils tells us no divergence has occurred. This indicates the
opossum and other species experienced fairly uniform conditions before and
after the Flood.20

Equally important, the Bible does not state the Flood changed the earth.
Nowhere does the Bible speak of the volcanism, mountain uplift and continent
formation embedded in the young-earth model. Nor is there any indication the
post-Flood world was unstable. If that were the case, surely Noah would have
expressed concern about the post-Flood conditions and God would have given
Noah special instructions on how he was to survive. Instead, the Bible tells
us Noah and his family immediately began farming and planted a
vineyard-impossible if the conditions were as harsh as young-earth
creationists suggest.21

Animals on the Ark

The young-earth model assumes Noah took pairs of the originally created
"kinds" on the ark-virtually everything but insects and sea
creatures.22 However, the Genesis flood account uses two different Hebrew
words, nephesh and basar, to describe the animals taken aboard the ark. The
word nephesh refers to "soulish" creatures that can relate to
humans. The word basar refers to certain birds and mammals that interact with
humans.23 Thus, the ark did not contain representatives of all the originally
created "kinds." It only contained certain species of birds and
mammals that lived within the reach of the Flood's devastation and were
important to Noah's short-term survival.

The young-earth model also assumes the animals on the ark were unique-they
possessed special genetic coding that allowed them to quickly adapt to the
post-Flood environment and produce new species. However, nowhere does Bible
state the animals on the ark were different or endowed with special qualities.
Nor is there a single example from field research that supports this claim. If
modern species descended from common ancestors on the ark, we would expect to
find evidence of intermediate forms. We would also expect to see thousands of
new species arising today. However, nothing we observe suggests today's
species descended from common ancestors on the ark.24

In fact, rapid post-Flood extinctions seem to argue against the position
the ark animals were endowed with special qualities. Young-earth creationists
maintain God programmed the animals so they could survive and repopulate the
earth. Yet, according to their model, a significant number of animals became
extinct shortly after the Flood. For example, they contend Noah took dinosaurs
on the ark but they were not able to survive the harsh post-Flood conditions
and went extinct.25 If God endowed the ark animals with special qualities so
they would survive, why did so many species go extinct? And, if only certain
animals were endow these special qualities, why did God have Noah take the
other animals aboard the ark?

Life Outside the Ark

Young-earth creationists maintain some organisms were able to survive a
global Flood-aquatic creatures, plants and insects. They assume the aquatic
creatures, being aquatic, would not be endangered by global floodwaters. They
reason some organisms were able to adjust to the change in salinity caused by
the mixing of fresh and salt water, while others survived in pockets or layers
of fresh and saltwater.26,27 However, if the Flood was a global event, the
floodwaters would have been brackish, which would have killed most of the
amphibians, freshwater fish and many of the ocean species because each type is
adapted to live within a particular salinity range.28 Organisms on the ocean
floor would not have been able to survive the tremendous increase in water
pressure.29 It is also doubtful pockets of fresh and saltwater would have
persisted for eleven months given the violent geological processes they say
accompanied the Flood.

Young-earth creationists contend plants survived in floating masses of
vegetation or germinated from floating seeds.30 However, if the Flood was
global, the world's plant life would have suffered irreparable damage.31 Most
plants would have been buried by hundreds of feet of sediment. Few of the
plants and seeds that floated on the surface would have survived submergence
in water, particularly salt water, for many months.32 Those that did survive
would be unlikely to grow since most plants require very particular soil
conditions-conditions unlikely to exist based on the catastrophic global-Flood
model.33

Most young-creationists suggest insects survived by "hitching a
ride" on floating vegetation mats and flood debris. The problem is most
species of insects live in specialized environments that involve complex
ecological relationships with other insects.34 Most insects also depend on
plants, some on particular species of plants. Some even require a particular
part of a particular plant of a particular age.35 Thus, most insects would not
have survived a global flood unless they were accompanied by the plants and
insects that play critical roles in their complex life cycles. The odds of
these systems remaining intact through a catastrophic global flood are
virtually zero.

Post-Flood Migration

The young-earth model assumes today's land-dwelling animals migrated to
their present locations after the Flood.36 This is not something that is
stated in the Bible but something young-earth creationists infer from God's
command in Genesis 1 that the created "kinds" were to "fill the
earth." As stated earlier, the Flood account does not state the animals
on the ark were the originally created "kinds." Nor does the Bible
state the animals on the ark were to "fill the earth." God's
instructions was they were to "multiply, be fruitful and increase in
number."37

In fact, the global-Flood model argues against such a migration. Some
young-earth creationists contend continental drift-the process by which the
continents separated and moved to their present locations-occurred during the
Flood.38,39 According to their model, the Flood was followed by a major Ice
Age that lowered sea levels and exposed land bridges between the continents.40
However, the ocean depth between some continents is so great that even a
significant drop in sea level would not expose land bridges. In addition, some
species would have difficulty using the known land bridges. The distances
would be too great for slow, delicate species. Other species couldn't tolerate
the temperatures, such as the chilling cold of the land bridge between Siberia
and Alaska.41

Other young-earth creationists propose the continental break-up occurred
after the Flood, in the days of Peleg.42 However, if continental drift
occurred after the Flood, it is doubtful anything on the earth could have
survived the deadly earthquakes, volcanoes and mountain uplift. By delaying
the migration to the days of Peleg-about halfway through the generations from
Noah to Abraham-their model also significantly shortens the timeframe
available for speciation. Assuming much of the speciation occurred after the
animals reached their new environs, this leaves a timeframe of much less than
a 100 years based on the young-earth dating method.

Young-earth creationists admit this post-Flood migration would have taken
many generations to complete.43 If true, we would expect to find evidence of a
major radiation from Ararat. However, there is no fossil evidence to support
such a mass migration. In fact, many animals, such as the Australian endemic
families, have no fossil record outside of their current realm.44 Another
problem for the young-earth model is explaining what animals ate on this long
journey. Some herbivores have specialized diets. Were these plants flourishing
all along their migratory routes? And, with only a breeding pair of each
species available, how would there have been enough new deaths to meet the
food requirements of the carnivores?45

Rapid Speciation

The young-earth model assumes the animals on the ark were able to produce
new species in a few hundred years. We know this is the maximum timeframe
because historical records indicate some of the subtypes were in existence by
then. However, animals, especially advanced animals, simply do not and cannot
change at such rapid rates. If speciation really does operate this fast, why
does any line exist at all that is stable enough and distinct enough to be
called a species? Why is not the world filled with intermediate forms of every
conceivable kind? Why have some species not changed from their ancestors in
the fossil record?46 And why do we not witness thousands of animals species
developing from others today?47

Young-earth creationists say no reputable creationist denies the fact of
speciation.48 They also say examples of rapid adaptation-even to the extent of
producing new species-abound.49 As evidence, they point to populations of
mosquitoes, salmon and other creatures that no longer interbreed with their
main populations.50,51 However, these are examples of reproductive
isolation-as subpopulations get isolated they often won't interbreed with the
main population due to behavioral reasons. For example, fish living in the
same lake can acquire different food choices, which leads to different sizes
and different mating preferences. For the young-earth model to be true, these
processes need to able to produce macro changes and new organisms.

Ironically, many evolutionists now question whether descent through
modification (natural selection working on random genetic variations or
Permanent structural alterations in DNA, consisting of either substitutions, insertions or deletions of nucleotide bases.mutations) can produce the amount of change required to account for the
diverse body plans and organs animals exhibit. Studies indicate few
populations have the capacity to survive even normal environmental
fluctuations.52 They also indicate small, isolated populations are not an
advantage but a disadvantage because they give rise to serious genetic
defects.53 Thus, the young-earth contention that genetic shuffling is capable
of producing limitless biological change is more an article of faith than
fact.54 Like punctuated equilibrium, the young-earth model would suffer from
reduced fitness due to the expression of detrimental A genetic disorder that appears only in patients who have received two copies of a mutant gene, one from each parent.recessivePermanent structural alterations in DNA, consisting of either substitutions, insertions or deletions of nucleotide bases.mutations.

Horizontal Change

According to the young-earth model, the changes in species were horizontal
and at the same level of complexity.55 However, this is not what we observe.
An example is the so-called daughter species of the Bear "kind."
Sloth Bears have a specialized head and dental structure that creates a vacuum
device for consuming termites. Polar Bears have webbed feet and specialized
fur, dentition and digestive tracts. The Panda Bear has a specialized thumb,
head, reproductive system and esophagus.56 In claiming these changes were
horizontal, young-earth creationists do the same thing evolutionists do: they
extrapolate microevolutionary changes over long periods of time to produce new
biological structures without considering the requisite organic and
physiologic adaptations that are required.

Young-earth creationists claim the original "kinds" were designed
with more One of the variant forms of a gene at a particular locus, or location, on a chromosome.allele variation (Variant forms of a gene at a particular locus, or location, on a chromosome.alleles are different versions of the same gene)
than we observe in current species. According to their theory, the Variant forms of a gene at a particular locus, or location, on a chromosome.alleles segregated to produce today's species. This is problematic for several
reasons. First, genetic differences between Variant forms of a gene at a particular locus, or location, on a chromosome.alleles are never very great.
Second, Variant forms of a gene at a particular locus, or location, on a chromosome.alleles segregate randomly unless they are closely linked, in which
case they tend to be inherited together. Independent Variant forms of a gene at a particular locus, or location, on a chromosome.alleles would have
segregated to the fullest extent between the creation and the Flood-about
1,500 years by their calculations-producing all possible species well before
the Flood. Third, linked Variant forms of a gene at a particular locus, or location, on a chromosome.alleles segregate much too slowly to support the
young-earth speciation timetable.

Young-earth creationists also maintain the changes that produced new
species were not evolutionary in nature. The reason, they say, is
"information." Evolution involves the A permanent structural alteration in DNA, consisting of either a substitution, insertion or deletion of nucleotide bases.mutation of new Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes and new
genetic information. Thus, evolution is a process of progress where better and
better species evolve. Speciation, on the other hand, is a degradative
process. Through the reproduction of a limited number of individuals, genetic
information is recombined and Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes and/or The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.gene function is lost. Thus, the
daughter species have less "information" than the parent population.
Therefore, since no new information is produced in their model, they say it
cannot be called evolution.57,58

However, while young-earth creationists assert no new information is being
produced, they do indirectly argue for new information. A The functional and physical unit of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.geneThe order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence is
basically a combination of letters. The information conveyed by the The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence is both syntactic and semantic-the Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes occur in a certain order (syntactic
information) and certain The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequences have meaning attached to them (semantic
information). Thus, when Functional and physical units of heredity passed from parent to offspring. Genes are pieces of DNA, and most genes contain the information for making a specific protein.genes are shuffled and the The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence changes, the code
changes and takes on a new meaning. Thus, the changes young-earth creationists
attribute to genetic reshufflings are the result of new instructions-new
functional semantic information-that is conveyed by the new, reshuffled
genetic The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence.59

Defining the "Kinds"

Young-earth creationists contend the "kinds" on the ark were
species-stable, reproducing populations that did not interbreed with other
populations-but different from what we define as species. Since the
"kinds" were able to fragment into the subtypes we see today, they
must have been larger than today's species and probably corresponded to what
we define as the genus or family level.60 There are two ways, they say, modern
species can be determined to be descendants of the original "kinds."
As long as two creatures can hybridize, they must be descended from the same
kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they
must all be members of the same kind.61

Young-earth creationists point to a host of seemingly distinct animals in a
family that can produce hybrid progeny (e.g., horses and donkeys, lions and
tigers, dolphins and whales, etc.) as evidence species are descended from the
same created "kind."62 The problem with this approach is even though
these species may, in some instances, interbreed in captivity, they generally
do not do so in the wild. Crossbreeding animals in a zoo or laboratory proves
nothing. For the young-earth claim to be true, every animal in a family would
have to hybridize naturally. All of the changes observed in the laboratory or
breeding pen are limited. What breeders accomplish is diversification with a
given type. What is needed is the origin of new types.63 Biologists have not
been able to observe the entire The order of nucleotides in a DNA or RNA molecule, or the order of amino acids in a protein molecule.sequence of animal species fragmenting into
two or more morphologically species. In the vast majority of cases, the rate
of change is so slow that it has not even been possible to detect an increase
in the amount of differentiation.64

Final Thoughts

Flood geology bears all the signs of an idea that has not been carefully
thought through.65 While the young-earth speciation model is not evolution in
the molecules-to-man meaning of the term, it is still evolution. Evolution
also refers to limited common descent-the idea that groups of organisms have
descended from a common ancestor-and to the mechanisms responsible for change,
chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or Permanent structural alterations in DNA, consisting of either substitutions, insertions or deletions of nucleotide bases.mutations.66 In
reality, young-earth creationists appeal to the same processes evolutionists
do, except A permanent structural alteration in DNA, consisting of either a substitution, insertion or deletion of nucleotide bases.mutation. The only significant difference is the timeframe-they
propose speciation rates far faster than even the most optimistic Darwinist
would dare to suggest.67

Young-earth creationists maintain the Bible does not teach that God created
all the species we have today, just as they are today.68 They also claim few,
if any, creationists have ever advocated the idea of absolute fixity of the
species.69 This is not true. Many creationists have and do see the fixity of
the species as a critical element of the biblical doctrine of special
creation. The problem is the young-earth speciation model is not derived from
the evidence-either biblical or scientific-it is driven by the necessities of
the global-Flood model. Thus, while young-earth creationists want us to accept
the global-Flood view as the authentic Biblical account of what happened, much
of their model is the product of conjecture and extra-biblical imagination.

Reasons to Believe's position is the species were specially created by God
and began with their distinctive features already intact. We maintain descent
with modification is not capable of producing new species regardless of the
timeframe. We would concede speciation might occur with plants and with
organisms at the level of microbes-bacteria, protists, fungi and viruses-(i.e.,
those species that have large population sizes with short generation times)
but not to anything above that level. Thus, it is very ironic we are accused
of being theistic evolutionists and compromisers when it is the young-earth
creationists' model that is siding with evolutionists.

The fixity of species is what separates special creation from theistic
evolution and Darwinian evolution. Before we abandon this principle, let's
make sure the facts warrant it.

Other Resources

Dr. Ross looks the creation date controversy from a biblical,
historical, and scientific perspective. Most of the book deals with what
the Bible has to say about the days of creation. Ross concludes that
biblical models of creation should be tested through the whole of
scripture and the revelations of nature.

This book, written for Christians, examines creation paradigms
on the basis of what scripture says. Many Christians assume that the young earth
"perfect paradise" paradigm is based upon what the Bible says. In reality, the
"perfect paradise" paradigm fails in its lack of biblical support and also in
its underlying assumptions that it forces upon a "Christian" worldview. Under
the "perfect paradise" paradigm, God is relegated to the position of a poor
designer, whose plans for the perfect creation are ruined by the disobedience of
Adam and Eve. God is forced to come up with "plan B," in which He vindictively
creates weeds, disease, carnivorous animals, and death to get back at humanity
for their sin. Young earth creationists inadvertently buy into the atheistic
worldview that suffering could not have been the original intent of God, stating
that the earth was created "for our pleasure." However, the Bible says
that God created carnivores, and that the death of animals and plants was part
of God's original design for the earth.

"Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh
that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on
the earth, that they may breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and
multiply on the earth." (Genesis 8:17) (NIV)